Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since assessee has been consistently disclosing the address to the Revenue Department for the purpose of service and communication at 3, Tansen Marg, Bengali Market, New Delhi and this fact was also admitted by the A.O, therefore, there was no question of service of the notice […]
Court concurs with the CIT(A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation on purchase of New Weaving Looms allowed in case of assessee?
The issue under consideration is whether Non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment made the entire assessment u/s 147 invalid in law?
Shri Kailash Chand Soni Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of disallowance of interest expenses which are in accordance the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various parties […]
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
Where out of 14 persons, 13 persons have duly confirmed the booking advances made to assessee and their creditworthiness was also examined by AO but no negative inference was drawn by him, no addition could be made under section 68 just because one person who had only advanced an meager amount, had not recorded the statement under oath as he was abroad. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) would also not be levied.
Trushar Parimal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition in the present case was made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses. Indeed, the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by him. However from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus […]
Assessee not having routed service tax amount through profit and loss account, there was no question of making disallowance under section 43B on account of delayed payment of service-tax.
Assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source
